U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear portion of Plano candy cane case

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not hear oral arguments in the latest appeal involving what’s become known as the “candy cane case.”

But the suit challenging Plano ISD’s holiday party practices is far from over. The case began in 2003 when an 8-year-old boy was prohibited from handing out candy cane pens with religious messages to classmates. The case, filed in 2004, grew to include other families and similar incidents.

At the heart of the case is whether students’ religious rights were violated. Regardless of the outcome, it has prompted other districts nationwide to craft policies about religion in schools. The case was also part of the reason for the Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act signed by Texas lawmakers in 2007.

Last year, the appeals court agreed to grant immunity to the two Plano school principals involved in the suit because the law proved too confusing to assess blame. The Liberty Institute, a religious-rights agency that is representing four families, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Monday’s decision not to hear that appeal closed that prong of the case.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Liberty Institute, said the school district’s responsibility has yet to be decided. Responsibility has also not been decided in the portion of the case in which a principal denied a parent from sharing materials with other parents.

Sasser said it would probably be years before the case goes to trial because of its complexity.

“Until a school district or government school officials are actually held accountable for their acts of religious discrimination, there’s no incentive for the other school officials across the country to follow the law,” Sasser said.

McKinney lawyer Charles Crawford, who is representing Plano ISD, said this latest decision allows both sides to start taking discovery on the actual allegations. And that won’t be an easy task because so much time as passed, he said.

Crawford said the district doesn’t believe the allegations are true, but plaintiffs have a bigger hurdle in proving the district is responsible.

“The plaintiffs will ultimately have to show that the conduct they’re complaining about, even if true, was known by the school board and condoned by the school board,” he said. “I don’t think the facts will ever show that.”

Key dates in the candy cane lawsuit:

December 2001: A Plano principal stops Michaela Wade from passing out Jesus pencils at a holiday party.

December 2003: A Plano principal bans Jonathan Morgan from handing out Christian-themed candy cane pens at a holiday party.

December 2004: A judge issues a temporary restraining order against the school district, prohibiting it from establishing when students can distribute religious materials.

December 2004: The Liberty Institute sues Plano ISD.

April 2005: Plano ISD changes its policy to broaden the times and places students can pass out material.

September 2005: U.S. Sen. John Cornyn submits a brief in support of plaintiffs, saying the district has gone too far in limiting free speech.

December 2005: Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly chastises the Plano school district on the air.

February 2007: A judge rules that the district can’t stop elementary school children from handing out materials during lunch.

December 2009: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Plano ISD’s new policy is constitutional.

June 2010: The U.S. Supreme Court decides not to hear that prong of the case.

July 2010: The 5th Circuit rules that the principals can be held liable for their actions.

September 2011: The full 5th Circuit grants qualified immunity to the two Plano principals. The Liberty Institute filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

June 11, 2012: U.S. Supreme Court decides not to hear that appeal.

What’s next: An examination of whether the district’s actions were constitutional.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.